Re: OMG!

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

Jeff Blakeney wrote in message

>>Not necessarily true. With software as old as we are talking about,
chances
>>are there are quite a few originals that have been destroyed. Also, an
>>original copy is a more substantial copy than someone's download off of
>>Asimov so that they can play it on an emulator for 3 days, and then they
>>delete it so that there is more room for Diablo II. If we contact someone
>>who can prove that they've destroyed or thrown away an original,  and ask
>>for their "license" are we then legal to download a single "copy" ?
>
>Not unless you can get the original disk.  :-)


If it is physical property only, as this suggests, then my copy is my own
work, and not subject to your laws. Either it is an abstract thing, or a
literal thing, take your pick. Quit switching off, just so you can win an
argument. License is license, so contacting someone who abandoned a license
and recieving theirs should be enough to legally download it. Every little
kid who lost the nintendo to a housefire, could easily download UltraHLE and
grab the roms he lost, wouldn't you think? I mean, since a cart isn't a
physical thing to be bought and owned?

>>Definitely not true. As far as many users on here today are concerned,
>>copyrights are indeed forever, in a very practical sense. Even if the
>>expiration is never extended again (a big IF, don't you think?), the
>>software in question will in all likelyhood be out of the public domain
well
>>past my expected lifespan. Even a single extension to the expiration will
>>make this certainty. I'd say this would be true for all but the tiniest
>>fraction of people "illegally" downloading abandonware. What, maybe some
11
>>yr old playing a few apple II games, if he is the rare person to live into
>>his 90s might have a chance of downloading such in a manner that satisfies
>>the IP nuts. Another 20 year extension, and it's out of his reach, too.
>
>You do know that the copyright holders can voluntarily relinquish
>their copyright, don't you?  There is nothing stating the once a work
>is copyrighted it remains copyrighted until the copyright expires.


I know that at any time, Congress can lower copyright expiration to 2.3
seconds. But from a practical standpoint, it is obviously indefinite at
best, and arguably eternal. As more copyrights become property of
corporations, the less likely any will ever be voluntarily relinqueshed.
Even as inhuman as most people can be, corps are inhuman to the Nth.

>What do you think the Lost Classics Project and the Treasure Chest
>Project are doing?  They are getting people to reclassify their works
>so that they can (usually) be freely, and legally, distributed.  No
>need to wait for the copyright to expire.  If people spent as much
>time and effort in helping get stuff reclassified as they do in
>creating pirate FTP sites, uploading and downloading pirated software
>and justifying their reasons for ignoring the law then there would be
>a lot more stuff available legally right now.


They are jumping through hoops to satisfy cretins who shall remain nameless.
Their effort could be better spent, were it not for the idiotically
self-righteous who tend to complain much more than could ever be warranted.

>>And then there is the issue of the IP industry not taking care of
>>"intellectual property" even though it has historical value. Hollywood has
>>corporate vaults full of film from the 40's and even earlier, that is
>>literally rotting. No one could make copies of it legally, and they don't
>>feel inclined to do so.
>
>All the more reason to get them to reclassify their works.


Haha. You must be joking. Either that, or I have overestimated somone's
intelligence yet again. Please tell me that I haven't. The more I
overestimate such things, the more it is that I've overestimated my own
intelligence.

>>Trials are cool. Those are those events where an innocent person can be
sent
>>to prison for 15 years, and even after proven innocent, right?
>
>Yup.  :-)

Looks like I had a brainfart there. Can't remember how I was going to finish
that. Still, it's scary that you smiled. You find it amusing, I take it?

>>Hmm. When a piece of property is lost, there is no need to prove it,
beyond
>>waiting a reasonable amount of time for the owner to claim it. Generally,
>>this can be from 2 to 8 weeks, depending on the locality. When you pick a
>>dime up off the ground, do you wait forever for the rightful owner to
claim
>>it? Don't act like this is an asinine question either, answer it. I've
heard
>>too many times that it's not the value of the property, but the principal
of
>>the thing. And it's obvious that it's just as difficult to prove the
>>abandonment of the dime, as to prove abandonment of the software.
>
>Unfortunately the analogy doesn't work.  You are talking about a
>physical thing that can't be readily copied like intellectual
>property.  Also, in the case of money, there is a defined system for
>determining if it's abandoned or not.  You turn it in to the
>authorities and if, after a certain period of time, no one claims it,
>then it is yours.  There is no defined system for determining whether
>an intellectual property has been abandoned or not.


Property is physical. And "readily copied" is hardly constant. I'd hate to
live in a world where that is the standard by which you judge guilt or
innocence. If houses can suddenly be copied effortlessly, you'll still deny
the homeless homes, simply because they don't conform to your system? That
will become intellectual property too, won't it? The word of the week is
"nanotechnology".

>However, it is far easier to prove abandonment of software than it is
>with something like a dime.  You know who owns the copyright to the
>software so you can contact them and ask them.  The dime, you have no
>idea who owns it.


Yes you do. Someone other than yourself. And as far as the copyright,
sometimes it is just as uncertain who owns that.

>>And if it's the law that all jews must wear stars of david on their
clothing
>>while in public? Bad laws are bad laws. That some are simply mild enough
>>that the idiotic masses can ignore them comfortably is certainly some kind
>>of principle. I can't ignore these laws comfortably, and yet...
>
>Yes, sometimes there are bad laws.  Usually, those laws don't last as
>society realizes they are bad laws and removes them.  Remember slavery
>was legal in the US once.  :-)


There is hope. You seem to recognize that some laws are bad. Still, you are
one of the many people today that thinks that bad laws only ever happen in
some other place and some other time. Maybe you'll learn. Maybe you'll just
move on to the "well this is hardly as bad as mass genocide". That's what I
would bet on.

>Copyright law has been changed many times in the past century and I'm
>sure it will continue to change in the future.  Until they change,
>however, I'm going to continue to try to abide by the current laws the
>best I can.


And if it just fluctuated, back and forth, it would be tolerable. That is
the safety margin that was built into our system of goverment in the US.
Things couldn't be guaranteed to always be right, but they could be
guaranteed to balance out. If any one part made things worse, something else
would "check" that, swinging the pendulum in the other direction.

It isn't fluctuating. It's going in one direction. Things don't look good.

>>Keeping morality and legality seperate. Let's think about this a moment.
>>Might have something to do with a belief that laws are created simply so
>>that you can exploit things to your heart's content. My morals keep me
from
>>particpating in a legal system designed solely so that immoral cretins can
>>cheat and steal as they see fit. Personally, I need a moral justification
to
>>be part of such a system, otherwise it's just an obstacle to avoid. Since
>>you have problems with people avoiding this obstacle known as the legal
>>system, why don't you explain this to us? It really boils down to "don't
get
>>caught" or "there is a reason you should obey this law". No one here
really
>>doubts that if caught, and the system wants to make an example of them,
that
>>they won't be crushed.
>
>Laws are created to give everyone in a society a standard set of rules
>to live by.  Morals are personal rules that people live by and create
>for themselves from a variety of influences throughout their lives.


Score 2, laws.
Score 0 morals.

It doesn't matter what your morals are, just don't break the law. That is
how I read what you say.

>This is why I try to keep morals and legal issues separate.  Morals
>are personal and therefore subjective.  Laws are impersonal and
>therefore objective.


The terms objective and subjective were most likely created so that those in
power could brainwash the masses. If they don't know if what they are seeing
is reality, then it is easier to control them. And do we really need things
to be so impersonal? And would it necessarily be more objective, if there
were such a thing?

>Personally, I think it morally wrong to pirate Apple II software
>regardless of how old it is.  You seem to to feel that morally it is
>okay to do so.  Some people think that is is morally okay to pirate
>software that is more than 10 years old, others 5 years.  How can a
>society exist with such a system where everyone determines what is
>okay based on their own personal beliefs?  The answer is, it can't.


That is this society. Seems to have done pretty well in spite of laws. Until
you people finally create the thought police you have lusted after for
several hundred years, people will continue to determine what is ok, based
on their own beliefs.

>That is why laws were created.  A single system with well defined
>rules that everyone who agrees to be part of that society agree to
>abide by.


I never agreed. I've said that all along. Also, I'll gladly leave and go
somewhere else as soon as I find "somewhere else". Oh, that's right. The
bald monkeys went and crowded up every place on the planet, there is no
where else to go.

>If we were playing poker and I pull an ace out of my sleeve and added
>it to my hand, would I have broken the rules of the game?  Yes.  Was I
>immoral to do so?  It depends on who you ask and why I did it.  Do you
>see the difference?


It is quite clearly immoral, in the context which you have spoken. There is
no "depends". The only thing that would prevent it from being immoral, was
if you were among friends, and it was already understood that you and others
would do that, as a joke or to goof off. And if they got upset, that would
tell whether or not such was so.

>I can confidently say that anyone pirating Apple II software is
>clearly breaking the law and no one can disagree with me because we
>have a law that states the they can't do that.  Morally, though, I can
>only say what my own belief on the matter is and there is nothing to
>back up my statement on the morality of the issue.


This boils down to corporate law. Nothing is clear in corporate law. Even in
the parts of the legal system where laws should be crystal clear, they are
disturbingly murky. You must have fools confidence, and not the more
encouraging kind.

>>I admit it. I break lots of laws. Most of the time, I go out of my way to
>>break the stupid/immoral laws. I'm not a protester either, I'm not doing
it
>>in front of a police officer, just so that a point can be made. I'm
sneaky,
>>and I try to do it in a way that only those who are sympathetic will ever
>>see it. Catch me if you can.
>
>In other words, you are scared to get caught breaking the law.  If you
>are so comfortable with your belief that you are not doing anything
>morally wrong, even though it may be legally wrong, why are you
>worried about getting caught?  If your moral position is so stable,
>the authorities will obviously see things your way and not charge you.


Scared? No, I'm careful enough that the risk is low. I don't care about
"getting caught" so much as being made an example of, by this wonderful
system of yours. As a matter of fact, your wonderful system has forever
cured me of caring about what society thinks of me. In general, society's
values are so different than mine, I sometimes wonder if I belong to the
same species as other people. What were they again, australopithi-something.
That would make me, what, evolved? And if I were scared, what's so wrong
with that? It's an either an inherently evil system, or one that's been
corrupted far more than should be possible. I'll gladly admit to being
scared of what such a system would/could do to me.

>>I'm a collector of software. Not only do I want the original disks, but
all
>>the materials that came with it, on down to the purchase reciept, if I'm
>>lucky enough to get it. Not only would I agree that used copies are
better,
>>but I fail to see how anyone could argue differently. Unless, sometimes
>>there just aren't any originals left... Still, I'd like to know that such
>>archives exist, if only as an offsite backup should some used copies of
mine
>>turn out to be victim to bitrot.
>
>I'd love to see an archive created but one that requires proof of
>ownership for restoring damaged originals and not the free for all
>pirate sites that are running right now.  That way, nothing would be
>lost to history and as more titles get reclassified, the software will
>be there to make it freely available.


Your reclassification fetish is really starting to creep me out. You're one
of those natural bureacrats that let people die awaiting organ transplant,
simply because the paperwork isn't filled out, aren't you? Now, here's the
proof, though sadly, only you will know it. When you read that, did you
automatically think "No, organ transplants are a higher priority than
paperwork" ? If so, and you're making little lists like that in your head,
then, there's the problem. Haha. There are important things, and there are
unimportant things. And reclassifying rates just below unimportant, on my
set of priorities.

Besides, proof of ownership? That's putting the burden on the customers that
have already paid. They already have the burden of tracking down "pirate"
copies, which for older software isn't always easy. Now, on top of that,
you'd add more? The authors are enjoying a monopoly on an arbitrary pattern
of bits. Maybe they're the ones who should be shouldering such a burden.

John